Way back in 2008, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) published an interesting book called The Creative Community College: Leading Change Through Innovation. Edited by John E. Roueche, M. Melissa Richardson, Phillip W. Neal and Suanne D. Roueche, the book contains profiles of fourteen community colleges that had grown, changed and made significant improvements. Each of the profiles is authored by professionals – usually the college’s president – who participated in and led the change. A decade old, the book is still relevant and worthy of our consideration.
The short chapters are helpful and easily digested. They include studies of Guilford Technical and Community College, Chaffey College, Iowa Central Community College, Morton College, Richland College, El Paso Community College, the College of Southern Nevada, Cuyahoga Community College, Community College of Denver, Florida Community College at Jacksonville, Kentucky Community and Technical College System, Louisiana Community and Technical College System, and Tallahassee Community College. Urban, suburban and rural institutions are represented, as is the geographic span of the country, from red states to blue states.
The editors’ conclusion asserts that creativity is found in all stories in similar factors: reaching students more effectively, improving technology, bolstering external relationships, changing facilities, honoring the arts, successfully addressing financial challenges, and global awareness. The editors also note that these leaders took risks, they moved ahead of the curve, they turned threats into motivation, and that they demonstrated vision, integrity and values. These leaders also demonstrated great vision. In sum, leadership that makes a meaningful difference demands innovation.
All true and there is more to the volume. The institutional stories collectively present perspectives on the community college world and institutional improvement that are markedly different from what takes place at four-year institutions. The community college leaders wrote about sharpening institutional intentionality and focus, about partnerships, about managing crises and financial challenges, and of building systems. In my experience working at and studying four-year institutions, presidents are more likely to emphasize new programs, new buildings, new faculty, and rankings. What this means is that there are different ways of giving shape to framing and understanding the hows and whys of institutional improvement.
Innovation can appear in different guises, in higher education sectors and across higher education sectors.
As a general proposition, I think that the four-year world tends to emphasize ways that the forms of higher education – the college – are improved. In contrast, the community college world tends to emphasize the ways that the functions of higher education – the outcomes – are improved. Both these approaches are needed and relevant. Neither are exclusive; there are exceptions and complications. These tendencies, though, can run deep. In higher education, form does not necessarily follow function.
Another takeaway from the volume is that innovation and improvement in community college leadership is inherently situational. There is no one best way to address access, remediation, transfer, or institutional success.
Do not read the accounts in this book in the hopes of finding specific solutions. Instead, study the successes for processes: how problems were identified, how solutions were crafted, how teams were built and sustained, and how mission trumps personality and preference. It is the overall process that makes for positive change.
One can find many important lessons in The Creative Community College.
David Potash